Memo To David Axelrod and Other Social Engineers

by Thomas A. Droleskey

David Axelrod, who holds the position of Senior Advisor to the President of the United States of America, gave what some gullible folks in cyberspace believed was a hint that that the administration of the man whose policies he helps to plan and implement, Barack Hussein Obama, might be willing to consider some kind of "compromise" with the conciliar "bishops" over the mandate issued recently that forced religiously run institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization and other "family" planning services. Axelrod said that it was necessary to "lower our voices," which is Alinsky-speak for this: "Stop complaining, you bitter clingers. Get over it. We're in power. You lose. Get over it."

Axelrod's phony "possible compromise" story was designed to make headlines in the news cycles to "pacify spirits" while it was left to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to explain that there would be no compromise at all, thereby playing "bad cop" to Axelrod's seeming "good cop:"

Q Okay. On the contraception issue, Speaker Boehner is promising to
repeal the rule through legislation. Senator McConnell has talked about
the same. I'm curious about your reaction to that. And if that were
to happen, is that the kind of measure that the President would veto?
Does he feel that strongly?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that's -- there's a lot of speculation embedded in that question, and I’m not going to go there.

I think on this issue, from the very beginning we have said that we
will listen and work with individuals who have concerns as we work to
implement the law. As I said yesterday, on January 20th, when this
decision was announced, Secretary Sebelius said: “We will continue to
work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to
discuss their concerns.”

And I would note that 28 states have similar contraception coverage
requirements, and eight states, as I’ve mentioned before, do not even
have the exemption that this provision requires for churches and houses
of worship.

We want to work with all these organizations to implement this policy
in a way that is as sensitive to their concerns as possible. But let’s
be clear. We are committed -- the President is committed -- to ensuring
that women have access to contraception without paying any extra costs
no matter where they work.

Q So while you’re pledging to work with groups who have concerns,
the Congress -- or at least the House right now is pledging to undo the
rule. What is your reaction to that part of it?

MR. CARNEY: Right now I think we are focused on the implementation of
this rule and doing what we said back on January 20th when Secretary
Sebelius announced it, which was work with those who have concerns to
see if there’s a way to implement this policy to ensure that women
everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same
access to preventive services, but to do it in a way that might allay
some of the concerns that have been expressed.

This President has -- as you know, in his past, he has worked with when
he -- his first job in Chicago with churches and organizations that do a
lot of good work. He is very sensitive to concerns like these and he
wants to find a way to implement this important rule because he is
committed to making sure that women have access to this coverage -- he
wants to find a way to implement it that can allay some of the concerns
that have been expressed. And that is why the transition period was
announced at the same time that the rule was announced. (Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/8/12.)

No compromise is possible here, only a period of "transition" to get the "bitter clingers" a chance to "adjust" to the new reality. That's all that thugs ever permit those they seek to intimidate and subject to their iron wills.

In the midst of this gamesmanship that is designed to control the news cycles, however, there was this little nugget from David Axelrod's "compromise is possible" story that was designed to present a false picture of "hope" where none ever existed:

"The real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way
that respects the concerns that have been raised but also assures women
across this country that they're going to have the preventive care that
they need." (White House Hints At Compromise On Contraceptive Order.)

Here's s brief memo to David Axelrod: Pregnancy is not a disease to be "prevented." A child is a gift from God who is meant to be loved. A child is the natural fruit of human conjugal relations. Contraception a direct violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony.

Not that it would mean anything to you, Mr. Axelrod, but here is the sole reason that God gave a helpmate to Adam when after He had created him from the dust of this earth and brought forth Eve from his side:

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and
the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every
creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.[28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply,
and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea,
and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the
earth.[29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the
earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to
be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may
have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30.)

That's pretty clear, Mr. Axelrod, and, like it or not, you are going to meet the true God of Divine Revelation at the moment of your own Particular Judgment. Those who seek to justify violation of His law and seek to impose their false beliefs upon what they think to be the institutions of His Holy Church will not receive a sentence to their liking at that terrible time.

The gift given by God to men and women to continue the species so as to populate the earth and to thus have new citizens of Heaven by means of their baptism is to be used solely by those who are in the married state and must be left open at all times to the fulfillment of its primary end: the procreation and education of children:

Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on
the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting
once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is
provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated
religiously,"[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of
Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20] (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed
to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the
offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of
matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not
through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both
parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this
criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify
their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on
the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of
the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family
circumstances .

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.
Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the
begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its
natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful
and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine
Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has
punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's
legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is
prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian
tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another
doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted
the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst
of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the
chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her
voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims
anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is
deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense
against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded
with the guilt of a grave sin. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once
again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and
conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the
performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural
consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and
hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication"
or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral
and lawful one. . . .

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has
not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the
married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The
other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally
primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially
subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring
result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and
formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal
or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual
perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties
and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of
values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations,
that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a
declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very
internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what
has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs
have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by
the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing
opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it
could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the
primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the
offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially
subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and
independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

The very newspaper that is generally supportive of your administration's policies of statism, The Washington Post, had editorial writers eighty-one years ago who were influenced by the vestigial influences of Catholicism then extant in the world. These writers denounced the madness that you are now seeking to impose upon what you believe to be the Catholic Church:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1931.)

You need to convert to the Catholic Faith before you die, Mr. Axelrod, as you are heaping red hot coals upon your head by promoting one grave evil after another under cover of the civil law. Too harsh, Mr. Axelrod. Consider these words of Pope Pius XI concerning those in public life who support the surgical dismemberment of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs:

67. Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the
duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives
of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered
and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first
place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not
only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death
at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge
and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

That's really all I have to write to you, Mr. Axelrod, noting full well that I am casting these pearls of Catholic truth before a swineherd of Modernity. Saint Paul the Apostle wrote that sensual men, that is, men who see only with the natural eyes of the body and not the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith, will never understand those who are willing to die in defense of the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication:

For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that
is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the
Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this
world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that
are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned
words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing
spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not
these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to
him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. (2 Cor. 2: 11-15)

The commentary for the phrase
"sensual man" found in the Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Version) speaks
quite clearly about the fact that those who are steeped in naturalism
consider it madness that anyone would insist that there is a truth
revealed by God Himself that binds all men at all times in all
circumstances without any exception whatsoever:

14 "The sensual man"... The sensual man
is either he who is taken up with sensual pleasures, with carnal and
worldly affections; or he who measureth divine mysteries by natural
reason, sense, and human wisdom only. Now such a man has little or no
notion of the things of God. Whereas the spiritual man is he who, in the
mysteries of religion, takes not human sense for his guide: but submits
his judgment to the decisions of the church, which he is commanded to
hear and obey. For Christ hath promised to remain to the end of the
world with his church, and to direct her in all things by the Spirit of
truth.

Barack Hussein Obama and David Axelrod are simply the latest in a long line of petty tyrants who lived off of the fat of the people's money as they have sought to persecute the Catholic Church. History is littered with the likes of not only Nero and Valerian and Trajan and Diocletian but of countless other officials of the Roman Empire and of pagan and barbaric tribe and, of course, of the synagogue, that sought to persecute the Catholic Church in her infancy. She has survived these assaults. She has survived the assaults of the Protestant Revolutionaries and of the anti-Incarnational revolutionaries of Modernity who were unleashed in the aftermath of the American and French Revolutions. She will even survive the usurpation of her buildings and offices in the past fifty years by the spiritual robber barons whose love of the errors of Modernity have made it more possible for the likes of you to rise up and persecute them for attempting to close the barn door after they had let the wild horses of theological error run free. It is impossible for them to deal effectively with committed tyrants such as Obama and his paid minions as it is their own acceptance of the errors of Modernity that have produced a situation where most Catholics see what they think is the Catholic Church through the eyes of the world rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith.

As has been noted on this site in recent articles, the Obama administration made a very calculated political move with the contraception insurance mandate as its officials know full well that they can count on the full-throated support of just enough Catholics to make withstand the outcries of the conciliar "bishops" and priests/presbyters, most of whom do not realize that it is the very thing that they thing is their protection, "religious liberty," that is responsible for making possible the likes of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus (see John Carroll Opened The Door To Today's Persecution, Antichrist's Anti-Religious Religious Zeal, Ominous Offenders Offending Ominously). It is no wonder that somewhere between forty-five and fifty-eight percent of Catholics support Obama's contraception insurance mandate when one considers the fact that somewhere between ninety to ninety-eight percent of Catholic married couples practice contraception, which leads, of course, to smaller families and thus greater dependency upon the government in cases of hardship, especially for the elderly whose grown children believe that it is the responsibility of the government, not themselves, to care for them needs as to do so would be "burdensome."

The fact that there is nearly universal acceptance of contraception despite the counterfeit church of conciliarism's stated opposition to it (while embracing the contraceptive mentality by means of so-called "natural family planning", see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way, Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change) because many "bishops" have been totally unconcerned about this immutable teaching and because many priests/presbyters attached to its structures have not directly violated this admonition given by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have
the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for
the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err
regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves
immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor
or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him
into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty
silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to
God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take
to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if
the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46] (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Untold numbers of priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures have led Catholics into the pit by telling them in and out of the confessional, including in high school and college level classrooms, to "follow their consciences." This false dictum has led them all into the pit where they have have encountered the ultimate fruits of the rot that is "religious liberty" in the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and David Axelrod, each of whose conversion we must pray for on a daily basis.

May ever Rosary we pray help to bring about the Resurrection of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth for which we must pray with all of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state-of-the-world and of the Church Militant here on the face of this earth.